The Fake ID vulnerability stems from the failure of Android to verify the validity of cryptographic certificates that accompany each app installed on a device. The OS relies on the credentials when allocating special privileges that allow a handful of apps to bypass Android sandboxing. Under normal conditions, the sandbox prevents programs from accessing data belonging to other apps or to sensitive parts of the OS. Select apps, however, are permitted to break out of the sandbox. Adobe Flash in all but version 4.4, for instance, is permitted to act as a plugin for any other app installed on the phone, presumably to allow it to add animation and graphics support. Similarly, Google Wallet is permitted to access Near Field Communication hardware that processes payment information.

Sounds serious! Should you be worried? Is it time to stock up on canned beans and switch to a Nokia 3310? Of course, it's always time to switch to a Nokia 3310, but not really because of this "issue". Buried deep within the Ars Technica article is Google's response to the issue.

After receiving word of this vulnerability, we quickly issued a patch that was distributed to Android partners, as well as to AOSP. Google Play and Verify Apps have also been enhanced to protect users from this issue. At this time, we have scanned all applications submitted to Google Play as well as those Google has reviewed from outside of Google Play, and we have seen no evidence of attempted exploitation of this vulnerability.

First, a patch been sent to OEMs and AOSP, but with Android's abysmal update situation, this is a moot point. The crux, however, lies with Google Play and Verify Apps. These have already been updated to detect this issue, and prevent applications that try to abuse this flaw from being installed. This means two things.

First, that there are no applications in Google Play that exploit this issue. If you stick to Google Play, you're safe from this issue, period. No ifs and buts. Second, even if you install applications from outside of Google Play, you are still safe from this issue. Verify Apps is part of Play Services, and runs on every Android device from 2.3 and up. It scans every application at install and continuously during use for suspect behaviour. In this case, an application that tries to exploit this flaw will simply be blocked from installing or running.

As a sidenote, you can actually disable Verify Apps, but unlike what some people seem to think, the dialog you get about sending data to Google when trying to sideload an application has nothing to do with this (that dialog just covers sending data about the application to Google, which is not required for Verify Apps to work). To actually completely disable Verify Apps, you need to go into the Google Settings application (or the Android settings application in 4.2 and up), navigate to Security, and disable it from there.

To get back to the matter at hand: this means that every Android user with Google Play Services is 100% protected from this issue. The only way an Android user can potentially be affected by this issue is if she, one specifically allows installation from unknown sources, and two, specifically disables Verify Apps - all accompanied by several warnings. Luckily, not a single application in or outside of Google Play is currently trying to exploit this issue.

While one can expect sensationalist nonsense from a site like AppleInsider - you don't blame TMZ for reporting on a fart by Miley Cyrus; you don't blame AppleInsider for spreading sensationalist nonsense - I'm very disappointed that a respected site like Ars Technica resorts to spreading this kind of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, especially since this isn't the first time the site has done so.

Recently, it has become very clear that the security industry - antivirus peddlers and similar companies - have focussed all their attention on Android, resorting to all sorts of dirty tactics to scare unsuspecting users into buying their useless software. Since I can't stress this often enough: do not install antivirus on Android (or iOS, for that matter). It is not needed in any way, shape, or form.

This is not the first time they have tried to spread and exploit fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Back when Windows started properly shoring up its security, Microsoft released MSE, and the mass infections of the early XP days became a thing of the past, they tried to use the exact same tactics to try and scare the rapidly growing number of OS X users into buying their junk.

I advocated against this practice then (more here), and I will advocate against it now. When you come across stories like this, you can almost always assume it's FUD, whether it covers Android, OS X, or iOS. They almost always originate from antivirus peddlers, who know full well that operating system security - on both desktop and mobile - has increased so much these past decade or so that their core business model is at stake, and as such, they have to drum up the FUD. I just wish respected websites would not dance to their tunes for clicks.

You can see the comments appear and disappear some minutes later.
And the web server articles from 2013 you mention are full of it. I just look at the first one and they start by recommending 2 web hosting services, don't even say why those 2 instead of one of the other thousands and go as far as providing a totally uneeded big ostentatious picture with their pricing clearly displayed. Then they list the specs of their servers and take care to link each component to a nice link to buy it at Amazon. Totally independant and unbiased...

Wait, are you saying that they shouldn't give any examples of what to use? Or are you saying that they should only use examples that you approve of? Regardless of what you're going to answer both of those stances would be ridiculous. No matter what they had given as examples you'd still go on a tangent about how they're "advertising" and "biased" and whatnot.

No, sorry, I'm not going to agree with you. It makes totally perfect sense to provide a few example of what and where to look and they don't even try to make any sort of claim that those are the only possible choices available.

They web hosting services they recommend are not only examples. They RECOMMEND to use them, without any reason given whatsoever. They could have laid the sentence like "of course you can use a web hosting service like that one or that one" but they chose to lay it like "If you want to use web hosting services we recommend this service or this service". Then they don't have to put an ostentatious picture of the pricing offered by those services. Those interested can find it on the web site they already linked to. Doesn't that sound like an advert? If if quacks like a duck...
About the "example" of computer parts they use, they could very well link to the manufacturer site or some neutral source like wikipedia. But they use Amazon, where only commercial information is available and where you can directly buy the product. And that's not just a link on Amazon' page about the product, it's a link with a tracking id. They definitely get money for that one.

Is that wrong? No it isn't. They have to make money somehow. Should you take Ars Technica as a neutral source? Definitely not. There are countless sources where you can find tutorials to setup a web server. Most of them have a clear business model. Some of them are gratis and are using adverts to get revenue but those adverts are clearly delimited in a specific section. Some of them are totally free and funded by unervisities or donations. Some of them are paid for. Ars Technica is entertaining but their advertizing is pervasive and hard to tell apart from content. Slashdot has slashvertizments but you can spot them more easily. Just look at the comment section where all posters downplay the article as advert. OSNews is kind of the best in that regard. I think you can trust Thom to be totally independant and he has proven it multiple times, although it's sad he can't make a living out of it. Ars Technica not so much. I mean look: Thom links to wikipedia when he recommends the Nokia 3310 and that phone is not even sold. Obviously the Nokia 3310 is awesome.